The state House of Representatives should reject an unwise and overly broad bill restricting the release of autopsy reports on minors. The bill, unfortunately, already passed the Senate.

The county coroners pushing the legislation say it will protect the privacy of families, but there are already ways to block the release of these reports when necessary. Coroners, for instance, can petition state courts to exempt the release of an autopsy if they can show it wouldn’t be in the public interest. The rules balance privacy against the people’s right to know.

The broad, blanket exemption to public records law contained in Senate Bill 223 would upend that balance.

“To create a new categorical exemption for all autopsy reports of minors is not only unnecessary and overboard, it is a disservice to the public interest,” Steven Zansberg, a lawyer who has represented The Denver Post and other media outlets in open-records litigation, said in an email to the newspaper.

The fact is that the press has frequently used autopsy reports to hold public officials accountable — including coroners themselves. The Denver Post, for instance, worked with KUSA 9News in a 2012 joint investigation that uncovered serious problems with Colorado’s child protective system.

That investigation relied on an examination of the autopsy reports of 72 children who died of abuse or neglect even though child welfare authorities knew they were at risk. It resulted in reform to the system and the creation of a statewide hotline.

“The Denver Post showed five years ago that those reports are extremely useful in covering issues of abused children,” said Jeffrey Roberts, the executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.

A blanket exemption could also help coroners hide mistakes they make. The coroner who handled the autopsy for JonBenet Ramsey, for instance, apparently made a mess of it — which probably wouldn’t have come to light if this exemption had been in place.

The General Assembly must always be cautious when carving exemptions to public records law. It’s important for legislators to remember that government agencies work for the people, and the default position should be in favor of transparency.

There are some rare occasions when it may be appropriate to keep government information from the public, but such exemptions should be limited and narrowly tailored to best serve the public interest. This bill fails that test. It is not narrowly tailored at all, and it would do demonstrable harm to the people’s ability to hold public officials accountable.

The death of a minor is not always a newsworthy event. When it is, access to the autopsy report might play a critical part in the coverage.

Protecting privacy is a worthwhile goal, but transparency and public accountability must also be protected. This bill does not achieve any kind of balance, and it should not become law.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.